Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Nov;91(11):2277-2287.
doi: 10.1111/ans.16505. Epub 2021 Jan 21.

Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis

Amjad Qabbani  1 , Omar M Aboumarzouk  1   2   3 , Tamer ElBakry  1 , Abdulla Al-Ansari  1 , Mohamed S Elakkad  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis

Amjad Qabbani et al. ANZ J Surg. 2021 Nov.

Abstract

Background: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RHR's efficiency and safety, in addition to comparison between open and laparoscopic techniques.

Methods: A literature review was conducted from 2000 to 2020 including studies reporting on their centre's outcomes for robotic hernial repairs. A meta-analysis was conducted. For continuous data, Mantel-Haenszel chi-squares test was used and inverse variance was used for dichotomous data.

Results: In total, 19 studies were included. A total of 8987 patients were treated for hernia repairs, 4248 underwent open repairs, 2521 had robotic repairs and 1495 had laparoscopic repair. Cumulative analysis of robotic series: The overall average operative time was 90.8 min (range 25-180.7 min). The overall conversation rate was 0.63% (10/1596). The overall complication rate was 10.1% (248/2466). The overall recurrence rate was 1.2% (14/1218). Readmission rate was 1.6% (28/1750). Comparative meta-analysis outcomes include robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic. Robotic versus open: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less readmission rates. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, post-operative pain occurrence and hernia recurrence rates. Robotic versus laparoscopic: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less complications. There was no difference regarding post-operative pain occurrence, hernia recurrence rates or readmission rates.

Conclusion: Robotic hernia repair is a safe and efficient technique with minimal complications and a short learning curve; however, it remains inferior to the standard open technique. It does, however, have a role in minimally invasive technique centres. A multicentre randomized control trial is required comparing robotic, open and laparoscopic techniques.

Keywords: hernia repair; herniorrhaphy; inguinal hernia repair; robot.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 2018; 22: 1-165.
    1. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K. Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet 2003; 362: 1561-71.
    1. Pirolla EH, Patriota GP, Pirolla FJC et al. Inguinal repair via robotic assisted technique: literature review. Arq. Bras. Cir. Dig. 2018; 31: e1408.
    1. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 2019; 23: 473-84.
    1. Charles EJ, Mehaffey JH, Tache-Leon CA, Hallowell PT, Sawyer RG, Yang Z. Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot? Surg. Endosc. 2018; 32: 2131-6.

LinkOut - more resources